[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200711080131.01243.ak@suse.de>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 01:31:00 +0100
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
To: Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Marin Mitov <mitov@...p.bas.bg>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: is minimum udelay() not respected in preemptible SMP kernel-2.6.23?
On Thursday 08 November 2007 01:20, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 12:30:45PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Ow. Yes, from my reading delay_tsc() can return early (or after
> > heat-death-of-the-universe) if the TSCs are offset and if preemption
> > migrates the calling task between CPUs.
> >
> > I suppose a lameo fix would be to disable preemption in delay_tsc().
>
> preempt_disable is lousy documentation here. This and other cases
> (lots of per_cpu users, IIRC) actually want a migrate_disable() which
> is a proper subset. We can simply implement migrate_disable() as
> preempt_disable() for now and come back later and implement a proper
> migrate_disable() that still allows preemption (and thus avoids the
> latency).
We could actually do this right now. migrate_disable() can be just changing
the cpu affinity of the current thread to current cpu and then restoring it
afterwards. That should even work from interrupt context.
get_cpu() etc. could be changed to use this then too.
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists